Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6070
|
Posted - 2014.09.09 07:03:00 -
[31] - Quote
Heather Tsukaya wrote:baltec1 wrote:Griefing is already banned in EVE. Well surely you agree with your leader on #3 at least.
You'll find that a lot of us don't. Sure, I don't agree with people joining newbie corps for their awoxing safari, but awoxing does have its legitimate pros. This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee & Grammar Gestapo. |

Josef Djugashvilis
2505
|
Posted - 2014.09.09 07:44:00 -
[32] - Quote
What some see as griefing, others see as fun. This is not a signature. |

Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
2570
|
Posted - 2014.09.09 09:26:00 -
[33] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:What some see as griefing, others see as fun.
What CCP sees as griefing is the only relevant definition and that definition hasn't been described in this thread even once. Carry on with your spaceship asshattery, sir. o7 |

Hakan MacTrew
MUTED VOID Takahashi Alliance
865
|
Posted - 2014.09.09 10:28:00 -
[34] - Quote
Just read the OP, and what I saw was:
Remove all non-consensual PvP.
Not supported, (and that is coming from a former highsec carebear!) http://meme-generator.me/media/created/d3r3t8.jpg |

Beta Maoye
37
|
Posted - 2014.09.10 10:47:00 -
[35] - Quote
Heather Tsukaya wrote:#1: Only allow players who are criminals (-5 sec status or below) to suicide gank. This allows players to defend themselves and each other from suicide ganks. CONCORD should NOT be protecting suicide gankers.
To compensate for these changes, the NPC police should be removed from highsec, and players should have an option to "go criminal" if they choose to do so.
Not all high sec are populated with players. Some high sec far from trading hubs are sparsely populated. Your suggestion makes ganking more convenient in remote high sec that are neighbors to low or null. I don't think it is good for players who has not yet gained enough experience in true free spaces.
Even in populated spaces, a ganker group can cloak in a safe spot and use an alt to scout for the target. Experienced suicide gankers can get the job done within a few seconds before other players can interfere. After the primary target is down, if the situation is not too hot, they could add more killmails in their operation.
I think your idea give a hand to griefing instead of removing it. |

Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
197
|
Posted - 2014.09.10 11:22:00 -
[36] - Quote
Heather Tsukaya wrote:#1: Only allow players who are criminals (-5 sec status or below) to suicide gank. This allows players to defend themselves and each other from suicide ganks. CONCORD should NOT be protecting suicide gankers.
To compensate for these changes, the NPC police should be removed from highsec, and players should have an option to "go criminal" if they choose to do so.
#2: Only corps with POSs or POCOs should be war decable. Basically create two types of corps. One type "interbus registered" can anchor POSs, POCOs and other structures, but in return can be war decced. There is a fee of 100m to become registered. Another type of corp "unregistered" can not anchor structures, but also can't be war decced. This is the default type of corp. This stops high SP mercs from griefing new player social corps of players still trying to learn the game.
#3: Remove highsec awoxing. CONCORD should protect corp mates from each other. Even people like The Mittani agree that the whole "safari" mechanic should be removed from the game.
These changes should help prevent new players from being "griefed." Right now highsec is one of the least newbie friendly areas of the game because new players have no way to protect themselves from being griefed. Hopefully a day comes when I no longer have tell new players "join a lowsec or nullsec corp as quickly as possible or you will end up quitting the game."
1. CONCORD does not and never has protected suicide gankers, they will have their ships destroyed. They could make it a bit more interesting if CONCORD would pod the criminal as well but that would seem to go against the 'humanity' dictate to which CONCORD seems to abide.
2. I could get behind this idea but I'm sure many will not as it makes highsec even safer than it already is and the safety of highsec is already a frequent complaint you see in the forums.
It might; however, help to accomplish one of CCP's stated goals in that it would encourage grouping in highsec which at this time happens in extremely low numbers and leads to a sense of disconnection from the EVE community. Further it would encourage cooperative game play like mass mining operations which if you see one today it is most often a single-player corp running 10 computers at once.
3. I agree that CONCORD should intervene in any combat situation other than formally agreed to combat in highsec. That this isn't the case goes directly counter to the 'humanity' dictate It seems CONCORD follows with regards to not podding gankers in its areas of influence. Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really. |

Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
197
|
Posted - 2014.09.10 11:27:00 -
[37] - Quote
Hakan MacTrew wrote:Just read the OP, and what I saw was:
Remove all non-consensual PvP.
Not supported, (and that is coming from a former highsec carebear!)
Recommending you take some classes in reading comprehension then. Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really. |

Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
810
|
Posted - 2014.09.10 11:49:00 -
[38] - Quote
Hmmm while I don't really agree with the OP fact is I know more people IRL who have been put off playing eve due to being ganked or "awoxed" multiple times before they've had enough time to learn the ropes than I know that have stuck with the game.
Based on extremely strawpoll type numbers that may not be representative of the whole the eve player base would probably be more like 50% higher than it is if there was a little more protection of new players (whether that is a good thing or not is another matter). |

Toriessian
Helion Production Labs Independent Operators Consortium
272
|
Posted - 2014.09.10 16:06:00 -
[39] - Quote
If theres any change to Wardecs I'd like a mechanic where the AGGRESSOR can set an ISK value that is publicly shown on the dec where if they (the aggressor) lose X amount in ships the war gets invalidated. It seems like a strange mechanic, but I'd like the attackers to have a carrot to offer the defender to actually undock and try to fight. Theres not enough trying to fight in HS.
-From the aggressor perspective this may get you more kills.
-From the defenders perspective this is actually a reason to bother trying. 3 noobs in omens might just move the meter even if they all die.
I'd be happy to see HS AWOXING go. I understand the freedom of the sandbox, but any mechanic that is preventing new players from grouping has gotta go IMO. When reading about war decs, the suggestion for new players is to group up and fight back. Theres a contradiction here, and I think fixing that might get us another percent or two added to the 10% of the players that actually get involved with the game past leveling up their Raven.
|

NoLife NoFriends StillPosting
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
27
|
Posted - 2014.09.10 16:12:00 -
[40] - Quote
You are correct that there is much greifing in high-sec but CCP is just too stupid to realize these unfair and broken mechanics are doing much more harm for their game than good. |

baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13114
|
Posted - 2014.09.10 16:25:00 -
[41] - Quote
NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:You are correct that there is much greifing in high-sec but CCP is just too stupid and lazy to realize these unfair and broken mechanics are only doing harm to their game.
12 years on, ganking will kill EVE any time now. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |

Mag's
the united
17830
|
Posted - 2014.09.10 18:29:00 -
[42] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:You are correct that there is much greifing in high-sec but CCP is just too stupid and lazy to realize these unfair and broken mechanics are only doing harm to their game. 12 years on, ganking will kill EVE any time now. Indeed, it's still dying to this day.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |

Kaerakh
Surprisingly Deep Hole Try Rerolling
418
|
Posted - 2014.09.10 19:07:00 -
[43] - Quote
Mag's wrote:baltec1 wrote:NoLife NoFriends StillPosting wrote:You are correct that there is much greifing in high-sec but CCP is just too stupid and lazy to realize these unfair and broken mechanics are only doing harm to their game. 12 years on, ganking will kill EVE any time now. Indeed, it's still dying to this day. That slow growing death man. So tragic. Schrodinger's Hot Dropper - The Fate of Forum Alts - Click me! Click me! |

Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
41
|
Posted - 2014.09.10 19:18:00 -
[44] - Quote
Toriessian wrote:If theres any change to Wardecs I'd like a mechanic where the AGGRESSOR can set an ISK value that is publicly shown on the dec where if they (the aggressor) lose X amount in ships the war gets invalidated. It seems like a strange mechanic, but I'd like the attackers to have a carrot to offer the defender to actually undock and try to fight. Theres not enough trying to fight in HS.
-From the aggressor perspective this may get you more kills.
-From the defenders perspective this is actually a reason to bother trying. 3 noobs in omens might just move the meter even if they all die.
I'd be happy to see HS AWOXING go. I understand the freedom of the sandbox, but any mechanic that is preventing new players from grouping has gotta go IMO. When reading about war decs, the suggestion for new players is to group up and fight back. Theres a contradiction here, and I think fixing that might get us another percent or two added to the 10% of the players that actually get involved with the game past leveling up their Raven.
HS War decs keep new players from grouping up far more often that's generally the reason i get when new players leave corp to sit and mine or run missions. yet this is still a small number of people |

Toriessian
Helion Production Labs Independent Operators Consortium
272
|
Posted - 2014.09.10 20:08:00 -
[45] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:HS War decs keep new players from grouping up far more often that's generally the reason i get when new players leave corp to sit and mine or run missions. yet this is still a small number of people
At the end of the day that is exactly what I'm hoping to stop. These new players are scattering at the exact moment they should be forming up and its hurting New Eden.
Does your corp have ships fit at your HQ ready to hand to noobs in the event of a wardec? Is the leadership of your corp capable of forming 3-4 man gangs to try and gank solo war targets? Are fleets scheduled when a dec goes out with instructions on what ship to bring? How about overviews setups? These are the things that aren't happening in new player hi sec corps.
My suggestion gives the attacker a way to give you an incentive to do that and actually fight with a defined "end war" goal for the defender. Right now the system as it is says, "If you defend yourself and win, the attacker may choose to keep you decc'd and no matter how many kills you get, you may never actually get out of the war. Pray your attacker isn't space rich."
Would it be easier for you to rally your noobs into meta-4 rail thoraxes if you know you can "win" the war because the attacker said if you undock fight and kill 200 mil it'll end? Consider that question.
|

Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
2612
|
Posted - 2014.09.10 20:20:00 -
[46] - Quote
Players who stay in highsec tend to quit EVE anyway; there are very few of us who can actually live there for a long time and not be horribly bored out of our skulls.
If highsec is forcing new players to quickly find homes in deep blue null or lowsec somewhere, then that's just fine. Highsec is a truly awful place anyhow and they're not missing out on anything.
Before you ask, hush. I like the well-stocked markets and the lack of god-awful politics. |

Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
29
|
Posted - 2014.09.10 21:05:00 -
[47] - Quote
Wardeccs are not griefing. Individual players can just drop corp and avoid the wardecc. The fact that they choose to stay and fight the way makes it by definition not griefing. Wardeccs cannot be used to force an individual player to engage in PvP without CONCORD assistance, and are targeted at the corporation - not the player. If you don't want to make the effort to defend your corporation then it doesn't deserve to exist in the first place. |

Toriessian
Helion Production Labs Independent Operators Consortium
274
|
Posted - 2014.09.10 21:05:00 -
[48] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:If highsec is forcing new players to quickly find homes in deep blue null or lowsec somewhere, then that's just fine. Highsec is a truly awful place anyhow and they're not missing out on anything.
Before you ask, hush. I like the well-stocked markets and the lack of god-awful politics.
Around 10% are making it that far... thats my issue with leaving things as is. Imagine PVP with that getting to 13% or 14%.. we don't need big changes. Just tweaks in the early game. |

Beta Maoye
37
|
Posted - 2014.09.10 22:08:00 -
[49] - Quote
Toriessian wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:HS War decs keep new players from grouping up far more often that's generally the reason i get when new players leave corp to sit and mine or run missions. yet this is still a small number of people At the end of the day that is exactly what I'm hoping to stop. These new players are scattering at the exact moment they should be forming up and its hurting New Eden.
Yes, I want to see more players can group up too. I believe most players like to join together for group activities rather than doing things alone. Easing the path of forming group among new players can help to improve retention rate. Wardec issue has been brought up numerous times, but no consensus can be arrived at viable solution. I think wardec can remain unchanged. Instead I have the following ideas:
-Only corporation can join alliance to claim sov of null space. -Only corporation can put up player owned structures in null space. -Only corporation can wardec other corporation or be wardeced. -A new kind of organisation called club is incorporated into the game. -A club has its club channel and club mail. -A club is a small organization with limited number of membership to 100. It can extend the membership number by upgrading to corporation. -A club cannot join allicance. It cannot claim sov of null space. -A club cannot wardec other organizations or be wardeced by others. -A club cannot put up any structures in null/low/WH space. A club can only put up POS or POCO in high sec. -A club can be upgraded to corporation for a registration fee. However, once upgraded, it cannot revert to club.
The general idea is to provide a platform to nurture small organization among players in high sec in a relative placid environment. Player's club can upgarde to corporation to join alliance for the big boy game when they are ready. Wardec can mean what it mean rather than a griefing tool. Wardec fee can be brought down because the fee is no longer required to set so high as a hindrance to griefing. Smaller null/low/wormhole corporations and alliances can wardec their opponents more freely with lower cost. |

Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
2615
|
Posted - 2014.09.10 22:33:00 -
[50] - Quote
Toriessian wrote:Alvatore DiMarco wrote:If highsec is forcing new players to quickly find homes in deep blue null or lowsec somewhere, then that's just fine. Highsec is a truly awful place anyhow and they're not missing out on anything.
Before you ask, hush. I like the well-stocked markets and the lack of god-awful politics. Around 10% are making it that far... thats my issue with leaving things as is. Imagine PVP with that getting to 13% or 14%.. we don't need big changes. Just tweaks in the early game.
Again with Rise's god-awful numbers. Have any of you lot considered that of the 50% quitting EVE early on, most of those may have found that EVE just isn't the game for them? |

Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
42
|
Posted - 2014.09.10 23:06:00 -
[51] - Quote
Toriessian wrote:
Does your corp have ships fit at your HQ ready to hand to noobs in the event of a wardec? Is the leadership of your corp capable of forming 3-4 man gangs to try and gank solo war targets? Are fleets scheduled when a dec goes out with instructions on what ship to bring? How about overviews setups? These are the things that aren't happening in new player hi sec corps.
My suggestion gives the attacker a way to give you an incentive to do that and actually fight with a defined "end war" goal for the defender. Right now the system as it is says, "If you defend yourself and win, the attacker may choose to keep you decc'd and no matter how many kills you get, you may never actually get out of the war. Pray your attacker isn't space rich."
Would it be easier for you to rally your noobs into meta-4 rail thoraxes if you know you can "win" the war because the attacker said if you undock fight and kill 200 mil it'll end? Consider that question.
Honestly its much easier to just ignore the war dec 90% of the time if you avoid there local trade hub and trade routs you never see them and when you do form up and go after them they will just doc up and wait you out then focus on there other targets |

Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
42
|
Posted - 2014.09.10 23:08:00 -
[52] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Again with Rise's god-awful numbers. Have any of you lot considered that of the 50% quitting EVE early on, most of those may have found that EVE just isn't the game for them?
Exactly so we need to change the game to make it so it appeals at least some what to every one and is an ok game rather then making a great game for those who enjoy it
....
wait |

Azami Nevinyrall
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
1990
|
Posted - 2014.09.10 23:12:00 -
[53] - Quote
1 - uuummmmmm 2 - no 3 - just...no EVE needs more Pssshhhh |

Fourteen Maken
House of Shire The Ditanian Alliance
139
|
Posted - 2014.09.10 23:17:00 -
[54] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:Toriessian wrote:Alvatore DiMarco wrote:If highsec is forcing new players to quickly find homes in deep blue null or lowsec somewhere, then that's just fine. Highsec is a truly awful place anyhow and they're not missing out on anything.
Before you ask, hush. I like the well-stocked markets and the lack of god-awful politics. Around 10% are making it that far... thats my issue with leaving things as is. Imagine PVP with that getting to 13% or 14%.. we don't need big changes. Just tweaks in the early game. Again with Rise's god-awful numbers. Have any of you lot considered that of the 50% quitting EVE early on, most of those may have found that EVE just isn't the game for them?
Eve isn't a game for new players at all, that's the problem. The older the game gets the bigger the gap between new players and established players gets. Even though they might like the concept, and the enormous scope of the game there is such a huge gap in skills and resources between mature toons and new toons it feels insurmountable. I think the least they should expect is to be afforded additional protection from bittervets without being forced to spend most of their time hiding in dead npc corps or afraid to undock. There should be beginners protection where new accounts can choose to participate in war decs or not without having to leave their player corp. When their corp gets war decced new toons should have to actually opt in before they can be shot at for at least 6 months while they train BASIC skills needed for pvp. |

Toriessian
Helion Production Labs Independent Operators Consortium
274
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 01:27:00 -
[55] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:Again with Rise's god-awful numbers. Have any of you lot considered that of the 50% quitting EVE early on, most of those may have found that EVE just isn't the game for them?
So 50 of the quitters gone... that leaves us with another 50 percent sticking around... and what little changes can we make to keep 3% or 4% more is a bad thing to consider?
|

Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
42
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 01:35:00 -
[56] - Quote
Toriessian wrote:Alvatore DiMarco wrote:Again with Rise's god-awful numbers. Have any of you lot considered that of the 50% quitting EVE early on, most of those may have found that EVE just isn't the game for them? So 50 of the quitters gone... that leaves us with another 50 percent sticking around... and what little changes can we make to keep 3% or 4% more is a bad thing to consider?
no considering new ideas is never bad but not all of them should be implemented |

Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
9632
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 05:28:00 -
[57] - Quote
Toriessian wrote:Alvatore DiMarco wrote:Again with Rise's god-awful numbers. Have any of you lot considered that of the 50% quitting EVE early on, most of those may have found that EVE just isn't the game for them? So 50 of the quitters gone... that leaves us with another 50 percent sticking around... and what little changes can we make to keep 3% or 4% more is a bad thing to consider?
Yes.
Alienating your core playerbase for the sake of theoretical casual players is, historically, the death of a game.
UO and SWG being excellent examples. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Clean Up Local 2014.-á |

Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
2617
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 06:17:00 -
[58] - Quote
Fourteen Maken wrote: Eve isn't a game for new players at all, that's the problem. The older the game gets the bigger the gap between new players and established players gets. Even though they might like the concept, and the enormous scope of the game there is such a huge gap in skills and resources between mature toons and new toons it feels insurmountable. I think the least they should expect is to be afforded additional protection from bittervets without being forced to spend most of their time hiding in dead npc corps or afraid to undock. There should be beginners protection where new accounts can choose to participate in war decs or not without having to leave their player corp. When their corp gets war decced new toons should have to actually opt in before they can be shot at for at least 6 months while they train BASIC skills needed for pvp.
Really? This again? Clearly you do not understand how skills work. There isn't nearly as much of a "gap" or "divide" between new players and old in terms of skills as people like to think. A newbie can specialize into an area and be just as good at it, training-wise, as even the oldest of old players. Not only can they do this, they can do it in a mere fraction of the time that the old player has spent playing the game.
Is there a gap in wealth? Probably, but if you're really that obsessed with ISK you can sell a few PLEX and be right up there with the other billionaires.
New players don't need to be protected from old players. They need to be protected from the ridiculous stupid ideas they bring with them from themepark MMOs and they need to be protected from the ridiculous stupid notion that those ideas should apply in EVE too. |

Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1627
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 09:46:00 -
[59] - Quote
The only thing I agree is removal of in Corp high sec awoxing. It is bad for the game becuse make new players have a hard tiem to get into corps, because most corps do not trust new players, fearing awoxing.
And staying in NPC corps is one of the most serious obstacles to make people stay in this game. "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |

Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1627
|
Posted - 2014.09.11 09:53:00 -
[60] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:Players who stay in highsec tend to quit EVE anyway; there are very few of us who can actually live there for a long time and not be horribly bored out of our skulls.
If highsec is forcing new players to quickly find homes in deep blue null or lowsec somewhere, then that's just fine. Highsec is a truly awful place anyhow and they're not missing out on anything.
Before you ask, hush. I like the well-stocked markets and the lack of god-awful politics.
That is your opinion.. that btw is completely wrong. A lot of peoel left 0.0 and went to high sec exaclty because you have better pvp in high sec than in 0.0.
The most horrible place in eve right now is 0.0. Borign as hell. jUst a stupid farming machine where some farm npcs and others farm the people that farm npcs. "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |